All I can think of when I read that email snippet is The Gettysburg Address, "Tear down this wall," "I will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and seemly that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a tribute should be paid to their memory," and all the rest. Even Obama's email-writing lackeys have that gift, that je ne sais quoi.

I've been saying for a long time that Sarah Palin's gender and sexual charge -- for lack of a better phrase -- plays a huge role in the left's hatred of her and the media fascination with her. When this O'Donnell character came along in Delaware, my thesis was further validated.

Now, however, I wonder if I have been wrong. The psychology here may not be sexual at all. It may just be that the left and its media lackeys fear politicians who are just like Obama -- "young," telegenic, and good at electioneering but woefully inexperienced and awful at actually governing.

What has become very evident this election cycle is the difference, at least this year, between the right and the left. On the left, everything is top down. They try to organize the same way they try to run the country. And, it works about as well. This is an appeal to you to do exactly as those higher up require, coming from the one at the very top.

Contrast this with the Tea Party, which is, pretty much, bottom up, with those higher up either climbing aboard, or getting crushed. Not completely - Glenn Beck was instrumental, but maybe not specifically required, to make that protest work. But mostly, the Tea Party is bottom up, but arguably using a mesh like structure.

I don't think that anyone here is surprised at this distinction between the two parties. The Democrats, after all, are the party that wants to bring a lot more top down decision making to this country.

Here is what I dont get Ann- there are tons of substantial things one can-and should criticize Obama about- economic policy and civil liberties violations spring to mind. However you continually pick on the most insignificant things and then make snarky remarks about them. I don't get it.

Here is what I dont get Ann- there are tons of substantial things one can-and should criticize Obama about- economic policy and civil liberties violations spring to mind. However you continually pick on the most insignificant things and then make snarky remarks about them. I don't get it.

"If you don't think this subject is interesting, just skip this post. And if you don't think my observations are interesting, go read a blog that you find interesting."

I do like the blog-even though I disagree with her most of the time- but its kind of hard to skip the post once you've logged on to the site. You cannot tell what the content of a post will be till you read it. Of course its good that the blog mixes light-hearted commentary and snark with serious matters, but when it comes to Obama the posts more often than not tend to be like this one. As I said in another post, we've got to the point where the most incisive critic of Obama these days is Jon freaking Stewart.

Well, if Obama says this country needs change, I can't agree with him more. I think we've all misunderstood him, he was a man ahead of his time. Two years ago he was preaching hope and change, and now everyone is ready for it!

The question is how can the socialist imposing, fifth columnist, Muslim in disguise complete his revenge for British Kenyan colonialism? His method is to take advantage of crisis like Daddy Soros taught him to do. Suspending the Constitution by executive order in small increments through enemy run Departments issuing regulations is the most likely tactic for the nasty little tyrant. But he wants a white man on black man struggle to weaken his opponents resolve, which is why a charismatic white woman is needed to defeat him, while a dull white man will not do the job.

Apparently the US federal district court agrees. November will tell whether citizens will become subjects, fully owned by their feudal lords. 'May I purchase this food, sir? May I have this job? A thousand thank yous, kind sir, and here is a contribution for your reelection.

Myself, I hold little hope the US will reject authoritarianism. But of such tyrannies are revolutions made. I pray this one is peaceful, but human history suggests otherwise.

But where shall I live? Should Texas decide against secession, the choices are many, because we are no longer different than anywhere else. Why stay here during our prolonged economic descent?

Titus insists that he's a top. Takes it as a personal affront that anyone would consider him a bottom. The peculiar sensitivities of the depraved. Would make an interesting thesis that, except it wouldn't be allowed by the depraved, who are all on top today.

Obama is not a Natural Born citizen, as required by Article 2 Section 1, since his father was not a citizen, and Obama was born with dual allegiance to Britain (admittedly); No matter WHERE Obama 2 was born.

Calypso, the whole time Mitt Romney was running and getting endorsements from National Review, not a voice on the Right suggested that the Massachusetts plan was some kind of socialist boondoggle.

Had Romney been elected, and he pushed the plan through at the national level, we'd be hearing applause from the conservatives and liberal complaints about how it didn't go far enough (no public option, it's not single-payer, etc), which is what the far left is saying about Obama's plan anyway.

Oh Minzo, you must new here. If you are looking for nuance with regard to Obama, look elsewhere. This blog is all about the outrage de jour d'Obama. Blogs it at least once a day. But she isnt a Republican. [?]

Here's some possible "change" for you: A poll shows incumbent Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) down by four points to his Republican challenger, Rob Steele (a name that admittedly would be more appropriate for a Democrat).

If Dingell can lose in Detroit, then Nancy Pelosi may end up as lonely as the Maytag repairman on her side of the aisle come January.

I don't think you understand the role Mitt Romney played in our health care reform here in MA. The state house had and still has, a veto-proof majority of Democrats.

All Romney did was make a plan that was going to happen, a little bit less bad than it would have been. The price he had to pay was his endorsement. Politics is about getting the best results you can within the universe of the possible.

Peter there is more than a subtle difference between a 1993 proposal dropped without action and a 2,700 page bill rammed through against a populist majority's will.

As to Romneycare, everyone knows (or should) that the Constitution grants much wider latitude in regulation to states than to the federal government. There certainly was opposition, though ineffective, to Romneycare as it progressed. And after implementation there were numerous studies showing its shortcomings (see Cato Institute) yet an even more egregious and expensive version was implemented on a national level during a recession. Gee, what could go wrong?

"Obama is not a Natural Born citizen, as required by Article 2 Section 1, since his father was not a citizen, and Obama was born with dual allegiance to Britain (admittedly); No matter WHERE Obama 2 was born."

Oh God, not this argument again.http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Minzo...You asked what usurpation has happened. Ask GM bondholders what the little tyrant did to them. Ask the Gulf offshore oil drilling industry the little tyrant did to them. Ask the farm workers in the inner valley of California what the little tyrant did to them. Ask why the little tyrant's EPA chief still pretends that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant that justifies ending American life as we have known it simply by issuing false findings. Usurpation is standard operating procedure for the little tyrant.

The President of the United States called you a big bottom. That is quite personal and really none of his business. The real question is are you a bossy bottom? Bossy Bottoms can be challenging. Over there, harder, to the right, slower etc.

Calypso, the whole time Mitt Romney was running and getting endorsements from National Review, not a voice on the Right suggested that the Massachusetts plan was some kind of socialist boondoggle.

Had Romney been elected, and he pushed the plan through at the national level, we'd be hearing applause from the conservatives and liberal complaints about how it didn't go far enough (no public option, it's not single-payer, etc), which is what the far left is saying about Obama's plan anyway.

hoh is pb&j in drag with the same inane and false charges. Lots of Conservatives saw Romneycare as the train wreck it would become; although dbp has an excellent point, Romney could have taken a stand on principle and tried to veto it.

Simply because some liked him because he was a good businessman doesn't negate the many who were turned off by Romneycare.

SNOPES??!!?? HAHAHAHA. That entry is full of distortions, half-truths, lies and other assorted straw men. Obama's mother being too young, the 14th Amenment, "current law at the time", etc. etc. mean NOTHING. Natural Born Citizens are born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents. It is the unity of blood and soil at birth that makes one a Citizen of the US by no statute but Natural Law. It is a security requirement designed to ensure to the highest degree, attachment and allegiance to the US in the Highest 2 offices.

peter hoh: "Had Romney been elected, and he pushed the plan through at the national level, we'd be hearing applause from the conservatives and liberal complaints about how it didn't go far enough (no public option, it's not single-payer, etc), which is what the far left is saying about Obama's plan anyway."

Biggest line of bullshit I've read all day. Even bigger than Minzo's concern trolling.

I don't know much about the gay sex, but it seems to me that if you are a confirmed top, then you might not be entirely gay, but if you can enjoy being a bottom, then you are definitely there. I can't imagine a hetero man being able to relate to that position, physically or emotionally.

Right, and you are willfully ignorant. Fear of being called a racist or a (gasp!) "Birther" is your excuse for turning a blind eye to the violation of the security clause of A2S1C5. You are definitely no "conservative" if you think the Constitution can be changed by popular opinion. Oh I know, "that dog won't hunt", "it's irrelevant", "Nobody believes that", "he was born in Hi." "there are more important things..", "It makes us look bad", ALL BS!! It is THE most serious violation of the Constitution EVER, and is THE issue.

Obama was born an American citizen because his mother was an American citizen. Your theories about "natural born" citizens are utter, asinine bullshit. None of what you say matters. No court is going to overturn a certified election.

The only reason I bother with twats like you is because your rantings discredit the worthy conservative cause and make sane conservatives look like loons.

As I say, lefties, let's argue about taxes, reducing government, free trade, the economy, etc. And let's bear in mind that your side has plenty of discreditable loons as well.

I'm going to guess that the reason that you've never, and never will see Obama's birth certificate, is solely because it doesn't say Barack Heusein(sp?) Obama. His birth name was probably Barry (whatever). At one point in his life, he discovered his roots, and changed his name. Barry, shit, what a white bread name. Can't have that.

"Obama was born an American citizen because his mother was an American citizen. Your theories about "natural born" citizens are utter, asinine bullshit. None of what you say matters. No court is going to overturn a certified election.

The only reason I bother with twats like you is because your rantings discredit the worthy conservative cause and make sane conservatives look like loons.

As I say, lefties, let's argue about taxes, reducing government, free trade, the economy, etc. And let's bear in mind that your side has plenty of discreditable loons as well."

Of course you didn't answer the question. Of course he was born to an American Citizen mother, that's not the point. The POINT is that his father was Kenyan, and as such Obama ADMITTEDLY was born w/ dual citizenship w/ Britain. Natural Born Citizens are born w/ SOLE allegiance, otherwise the stated purpose of the requirement, to prevent foreign influence, would not make sense. I have presented many SCOTUS cases that directly mirror Vattel's Natural Law definition of "Born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents". You? NOTHING. Where does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS (SCOTUS or statute)? HINT: It doesn't. By the way, the 20th Amendment clearly provides for the case of an ineligible POTUS. You are certainly NO Conservative if you allow this serious violation of the Constitution.

"I'm going to guess that the reason that you've never, and never will see Obama's birth certificate, is solely because it doesn't say Barack Heusein(sp?) Obama. His birth name was probably Barry (whatever). At one point in his life, he discovered his roots, and changed his name. Barry, shit, what a white bread name. Can't have that."

No the reason is that it keeps the conspiracy theory alive, allows Alinskyan ridicule aided by the Media, and obscures the true Constitutional violation of Obama's dual citizenship at birth.

peter hoh said... "Mick, if "Natural Born Citizens are born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents," then McCain doesn't pass your test, either."

Exactly. This is not about Left or Right, this is about the Constitution. McCain was born in Panama, at a time when Panama gave birthright citizenship. He was also a dual citizen at birth, and not Natural Born. Bobby Jindal was born in Louisiana, but he is not Natural Born, since his parents were Indian Immigrant Non citizens when he was born (had his parents been US citizens when Bobby was born then he would be eligible).

Andrew Jackson was born to Presbyterian Scotch-Irish colonists Andrew and Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson, on March 15, 1767, approximately two years after they had emigrated from Ireland...Jackson's father was born in Carrickfergus, County Antrim, in Ireland around 1738.[6] He married Elizabeth, sold his land and emigrated to America in 1765...

Would the change getting unemployment ANYWHERE near what it was before the Dems gained power?

How about cutting back on the curtailing of our liberties? It takes a special person to make Bush look good on the issue of civil liberties...and Obama is that special person.

How about nominating competent SCOTUS Justices? He's named a woman too stupid to turn off her car when she leaves it and a Latina who is a puppet for the liberal wing of the court and seems devoid of any semblance of individual thought.

James Buchanan, Jr., was born in a log cabin in Cove Gap, near Harrisburg (now James Buchanan Birthplace State Park), Franklin County, Pennsylvania, on April 23, 1791, to James Buchanan, Sr. (1761–1833), a well-to-do businessman, and Elizabeth Speer (1767–1833). His parents were both of Scotch-Irish descent, the father having emigrated from northern Ireland in 1783.

So, basically, dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Shut the fuck up.

Andrew Johnson was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, to Jacob Johnson (1778–1812) and Mary McDonough (1783–1856)...Jacob Johnson was born circa 1778. Some sources indicate that he was born in Newcastle, England and sailed to America around 1795, but other sources indicate that he was born in Raleigh, North Carolina

Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia on December 28, 1856 as the third of four children of Reverend Dr. Joseph Ruggles Wilson (1822–1903) and Jessie Janet Woodrow (1826–1888).[1] His ancestry was Scottish and Scots-Irish. His paternal grandparents immigrated to the United States from Strabane, County Tyrone, Ireland (now Northern Ireland), in 1807. His mother was born in Carlisle, England, the daughter of Rev. Dr. Thomas Woodrow, born in Paisley, Scotland and Marion Williamson from Glasgow

Herbert Clark Hoover was born on August 10, 1874, in West Branch, Iowa. He was the first president born west of the Mississippi River, and remains the only Iowan President. His father Jesse Hoover was a blacksmith and farm implement store owner who was of German (Pfautz, Wehmeyer) and German-Swiss (Huber, Burkhart) descent. Herbert's mother, Hulda (Minthorn) Hoover, was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada of English and Irish (probably Scots-Irish) descent. Both were Quakers.

So, basically, some 10 percent of the presidents of the United States have had a foreign parent.

Go away, Mick. I have so humiliated you that I don't know how you could ever come back.

Much as it grates me to rise to the defense of Mick ("FRAUD!!!"), none of Seven Machos's cases are on point. Mick does not claim having a foreign-born parent is a disqualification; he claims that having a parent who is not a US citizen at the time of one's birth is a disqualification. Provide evidence that any of these foreign-born parents of presidents were not citizens when the little president-to-be was born, and then you have something.

(Also, Jackson is grandfathered in since he was born before the constitution was ratified. For him, it matters not what citizenship his parents held.)

There is no point in baiting Mick with inadequate arguments. Not even the adequate ones shut him up.

The Constitution nowhere says that you must have two parents who have taken American citizenship before a child is born to create a special citizen qualified to be president. It says: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

Mick wants us to accept his tortured interpretation of dicta in obscure case law to mean that there are two tiers on Americans who are born as Americans. There are not, and such a view is absolute anathema to everything we stand for. All liberals and conservatives should agree on this.

An American citizen born that way at birth is an American citizen born that way at birth.

As I say, Mick discredits conservatism with this lunacy, and it must be countered.

jaed said... Much as it grates me to rise to the defense of Mick ("FRAUD!!!"), none of Seven Machos's cases are on point. Mick does not claim having a foreign-born parent is a disqualification; he claims that having a parent who is not a US citizen at the time of one's birth is a disqualification. Provide evidence that any of these foreign-born parents of presidents were not citizens when the little president-to-be was born, and then you have something.

(Also, Jackson is grandfathered in since he was born before the constitution was ratified. For him, it matters not what citizenship his parents held.)

There is no point in baiting Mick with inadequate arguments. Not even the adequate ones shut him up.

Seven Machos said... "Chester Alan Arthur was the son of Irish-born preacher William Arthur (born in Cullybackey, Ballymena, County Antrim) and Vermont-born Malvina Stone Arthur.

Fucking know-nothing idiot."

Interesting that you bring up CA, since he was the only other Usurper, although the fraud he committed prevents his case from setting precedent. Before the election (he was Garfield's VP) there was an outcry about Arthur's supposed foreign birth (just like w/ Obama). Chester was actually born in VT., but hidden in plain sight was the fact that CA's father was not naturalized as a US Citizen until CA was 13. CA went great lengths to hide this fact, lying abou his date of birth, and burning all of his family history before he died. When he became POTUS upon the asssination of Garfield, he even appointed Justice Horace Gray to the Supreme Court, who many think was attempting to cleanse CA's illegal status by blurring the 14Amendment Jurisdictional Phrase in Wong Kim Ark. A careful reading though reveals that it is a very narrow holding that does not come close to the ammending of A2S1. It was never known publically that CA's father was not naturalized before CA was born until recently (discovered by Leo Donofrio). So his Presidency was not precedent. Fraud is not precedent.Obama obvously knows this history, which is why he made such a big deal about his foreign father, whom he barely knew, before the election. He is attempting, w/ his congressional collaborrators, to ammend the USC. Problem is, a few people caught on to his Non Natural Born status, and he has had to use the Birth Cert. issue as a shield to hide the real FACT of his Usurpation. Traitors to the USC have been trying to ammend A2S1 for a long tme (look it up). He KNOWS he is a Usurper, but he is arrogant enough to think he should be the exception, and in the process ammend the USC by precedent, thereby stripping an important security clause from the USC.Precedent is law. ALL of the ex POTUSes except those grandfathered in by A2S1C5, were born in the US of US Citizen parents (2). CA and Obama are the lone exceptions. CA was fraud, and Obama needs to be unseated.

"Mick wants us to accept his tortured interpretation of dicta in obscure case law to mean that there are two tiers on Americans who are born as Americans. There are not, and such a view is absolute anathema to everything we stand for. All liberals and conservatives should agree on this.

An American citizen born that way at birth is an American citizen born that way at birth.

As I say, Mick discredits conservatism with this lunacy, and it must be countered."

Well if you considerThe Venus (1814)Dred Scott (1854)Minor v. Happersett (1874)Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Perkins v. Elg (1934) to be obscure case law (they were major SCOTUS cases). ??!!!!???!!!

Where is that SCOTUS case that defines Natural Born Citzen as ANYTHING less than "born in the US of US Citizen parents"?Natural Born Citizen is a condition of birth. They are the largest portion of the population, and have no more "rights" than any other citizen. A2S1 is an eligibility requirement, inserted for security reasons. MANY terms n the USC are not "defined" w/in the document. It is you that is the traitor to the conservatives. What kind of Conservative blithely allows the Usurpation of the Presidency. WHERE is that case (SCOTUS), that you or no one else can produce, that says NBC is anything less than "Born in the US of 2 US Citizn parents".

I know several adults who were born overseas to parents who were U.S. citizens. For whatever reason, they grew up with the assumption that they were not eligible to become President.

Not as a serious, hang-one's-head-in-shame issue, of course. It was something of a running joke among kids who grew up in American schools overseas.

And one other thing -- I guess the birthers are going to make it difficult for the Arnold Amendment -- changing the requirement so that a foreign-born citizen could run for president. This was a serious proposal a few years ago. I guess it's toast now.

Peter -- An American citizen born overseas of American parents is eligible to be president. The issue has never been litigated, but this is the nearly universal consensus among people who know and/or would decide.

As someone who gave out visas (or not) and passed a not-easy test on this material, I know of which I speak, unlike nut job Mick.

Every American who was born an American is a natural-born citizen. The only other kind are naturalized citizens. There are not tiers of Americans born as Americans. Mick angers me greatly because of his lunacy and, apparently, some kind of blood and soil nationalism, which is fundamentally not what America is about. Korea and Serbia can have that bullshit. Look where it's got them over the years.